Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of deaths construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds, oh lord yeah!
Black Sabbath – War Pigs
You know civilization is in danger when I find more wisdom in the words of Ozzy Osbourne than in the words of any elected U.S. official. The U.S. war machine keeps turning. As we enforce our will on foreign countries, we produce more people who hate us. Just when you think the U.S. government is beginning to make sense by withdrawing troops from Iraq, they make the terrible decision to shuttle 21,000 more troops into the Afghan calamity. At a cost of $3.2 billion per month, we will throw another $38 billion down a rat hole in a country that has no vital strategic importance to the United States. Barack Obama is doing this to prove that he is a true statesman. The Soviet Union killed over 1 million Afghans, while driving another 5 million out of the country and left bankrupted and defeated after ten years. Young Americans will continue to die for who? for what? Our foreign policy during the last eight years can be summed up in one military term, SNAFU – Situation Normal All Fouled Up. These foreign interventions are a smoke screen for what is really going on in this country. When a government has unsolvable domestic problems, they try to distract the public by creating foreign conflicts. General Douglas MacArthur understood the danger.
“I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.”
Economic Opportunity Cost
“You can't say civilization don't advance... in every war they kill you in a new way.”
Will Rogers
Any doubt that the Military Industrial Complex is as strong as ever should be removed after examining Obama’s 2010 budget just put forth. It calls for 26% more in spending on Defense than President Bush spent in 2006. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, leaving the United States as the only remaining superpower on earth. Since 1990, the United States has depleted the U.S. Treasury of $7 trillion for spending on Defense. With no military on earth capable of challenging us why would there be a need to spend this much on the military? Over this same time frame the U.S. spent $360 billion on science, space & technology and $52 billion on energy, a mere 6% of the spending on killing machines. Military expenditures benefit humanity in no way. If these trillions had been invested by the private sector or devoted to energy and scientific research, our economy might not be a hollowed out shell dependent on China and oil exporting countries. Nationalists argue that the Defense industry employs millions and benefits the country. These companies employ brilliant engineers and scientists who spend their days developing things that kill people more efficiently. If they had been employed developing electric cars, solar power, wind power, nuclear power, an efficient electric grid, infrastructure upgrades, or finding a cure for Alzheimer’s, would the United States be better off today?
The National Debt in 1990 was $3.2 trillion. Today, it is $11 trillion. This is a 343% increase in nineteen years. What benefit has $7 trillion of spending on Defense produced for the United States or the world? In 2001, spending on Defense was 17% of total governmental spending. In 2008, Defense, Homeland Security, and war spending accounted for 26% of government spending. In the meantime, major cities have had blackouts due to an overloaded electrical grid, our 156,000 structurally deficient bridges crumble, one hundred year old water pipes burst under our streets every day, and we send $500 billion per year to foreign countries for oil. The 19 terrorist hijackers who implanted their plan with knives spent less than $500,000 to pull off their 9/11 acts of terror. The United States has spent over $1 trillion in response, without capturing the mastermind of the attacks.
.gif)
You would think we must be trying to keep up with our enemies by spending $765 billion per year on the Military. But one look at the following chart reveals that the United States is spending as much as the rest of the world combined. The two countries considered potential rivals, Russia and China, spent $192 billion combined in 2008. This is 27% of U.S. spending. From a foreign perspective, one must wonder why the U.S. is spending such vast quantities on our military. They can only conclude that it is for offensive intentions rather than defensive. The United States soil has not been attacked by a foreign power since December 7, 1941. Prior to that surprise attack, a foreign power hadn’t attacked the U.S. since the War of 1812. With this level of spending, our leaders feel compelled to interfere in the business of sovereign nations.
Other countries, such as China and Russia, feel they have no choice but to increase their expenditures on the military. On a percentage basis, they have more than doubled their expenditures in the last ten years, and still are a drop in the ocean compared to the American Empire spending. The fact is that the U.S., China and Russia all have enough nuclear weapons to obliterate the world – mutually assured destruction. The United States could realistically protect itself with the 18 ballistic missile nuclear submarines that we have in commission.
.jpg)
The U.S. has borrowed $609 billion from China, Japan and oil exporting countries to wage a war in Iraq that was based on false pretenses. None of the terrorist hijackers on 9/11 were Iraqis, they had no links to Al Qaeda, and they had no weapons of mass destruction. Historian Barbara Tuchman described “war as the unfolding of miscalculations.” In 2002, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld estimated the costs of the war in the range of $50 to $60 billion, a portion of which he believed would be financed by other countries. The United States invaded Iraq to secure the 115 billion barrels of oil reserves, pure and simple. We’ve traded the blood of young Americans for oil because we chose to not develop a cohesive logical energy policy in the last 30 years. Americans, not in the military, have sacrificed nothing in the last 7 years of war. We bought SUVs, McMansions, flat screen HDTVs, Blackberrys, iPods, and Rolexes while Americans died and the cost is passed to future generations.
.gif)
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
As we spend $765 billion per year on weapons, 37 million Americans live in poverty, with 46 million uninsured. There are 3 to 4 million people homeless in any given year. Military Veterans, who make up 13% of the population, account for 23% of the homeless. This is another example of government using Americans and then tossing them away like a piece of garbage. Now, with the recession deepening, tent cities of homeless are popping up across the nation. We pour billions into killing technology while American families are forced to live on the streets.
As the world spends $1.5 trillion per year on new methods of killing, millions die the old fashioned way.
- 13 million people per year die from starvation in the world.
- The FAO says that 854 million people worldwide are undernourished.
- The World Bank has estimated that there were an estimated 982 million poor people in developing countries who live on $1 a day or less.
- For the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for 5 years.
- Poor nutrition plays a role in at least half of the 10.9 million child deaths each year--six million deaths.
- 1 child dies every 5 seconds as a result of hunger - 700 every hour - 16 000 each day - 6 million each year - 60% of all child deaths (2002-2008 estimates)
What kind of a civilized society allocates 44% of the taxes taken from its people to war? Only 2.5% of your taxes go to science, energy, and environment. Only 2.2% of your taxes go to education and jobs. With a population of 304 million, the U.S. spends $59 billion ($194 per person) annually on education. Saudi Arabia, with a population of 28 million, spends $33 billion ($1,179 per person) on education. You produce the results that you would expect from your investments. A full 15% of our population doesn’t have a high school diploma (20% of African Americans & 43% of Latinos) and only 27% have a college degree. How do we expect to lead the world in technology and research with these figures?
.gif)
Human Cost
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait till their judgment day comes, yeah!
Black Sabbath – War Pigs
George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld were politicians who never had the “pleasure” of coming under fire in battle. The brilliant anti-war novel Catch-22 describes these men perfectly.
“Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.”
The world was a huge game of Risk for these men, with young Americans as the game pieces. Instead of conquering Kamchatka in a board game, these three non-veterans sent 4,261 Americans to their deaths in Iraq for a false cause. Their neo-con ideology convinced them they could change the world.
“In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason.”
Ernest Hemingway
Another 45,583 Americans have been badly wounded in Iraq. We’ve lost 673 more Americans in Afghanistan without coming close to finding Osama bin Laden. These three disgraced politicians will now write their memoirs, raking in millions for telling lies and half truths. The 4,934 dead Americans won’t have a chance to write their memoirs. These three men will receive their reward on their judgment day.
As National Guard troops are deployed over and over again to Iraq, they must realize that Catch-22 is alive and well in today’s military.
"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle."
"That's some catch, that catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed
American soldiers who have completed their duty to country have been lied to and had the rules of the game changed during the game. Their politician leaders have reneged on their promises by sending men and women back to the war zone or not letting them come home on the timeline that was agreed to. Meanwhile, their families are going bankrupt, losing their houses, and seeing their marriages dissolve. Politicians started this war and are too cowardly to declare failure.
“The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars.”
William Westmoreland
Many more will die needlessly now that Barack Obama has chosen to double down in Afghanistan. Another man who has never been under fire is going to prove his manliness to other world leaders. He should study the words of former Presidents who have been under fire.
“I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
“My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth.”
George Washington
President Obama follows the standard Presidential game plan and dutifully gives patriotic speeches at a military base proclaiming the bravery and sacrifice of our troops. These are the words of politicians. The brutal reality for troops is much different. Representative Ron Paul in November 2003 described the early mistreatment of our soldiers.
- Fort Stewart, Georgia, housed hundreds of injured reserve and National Guard soldiers in deplorable conditions who were forced to wait months just to see a doctor. These soldiers made huge sacrifices, leaving their families and jobs to fight in Iraq. They found themselves living in hot, crowded, unsanitary barracks and waiting far too long to see overworked doctors. This was hardly the heroes’ welcome they might have expected. Only an exposé in a major newspaper brought attention to their plight, prompting an embarrassed Defense department to rush additional doctors to the base.
- Some wounded soldiers convalescing at Walter Reed hospital in Washington were forced to pay for hospital meals from their own pockets. Other soldiers returning stateside for a two-week liberty had to buy their own airfare home from the east coast. Still others paid for desert boots, night vision goggles, and other military necessities with personal funds.
- Existing federal rules forced disabled veterans to give up their military retirement pay in order to receive VA disability benefits. This meant that every VA disability dollar paid to a veteran was deducted from his retirement pay, effectively creating a “disabled veterans tax.” No other group of federal employees is subject to this unfair standard; in every other case disability pay is viewed as distinct from standard retirement pay.
The Humvees that soldiers were forced to drive did not have enough protective armor. In December 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was giving one of his usual inspirational speeches when Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, a unit that consisted mainly of reservists from the Tennessee Army National Guard asked him a question:
"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Wilson asked, setting off what the AP described as "a big cheer" from his comrades in arms. Rumsfeld paused, asked Wilson to repeat the question, then finally replied, "You go to war with the army you have." Besides, he added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can be blown up." I’m glad Donald Rumsfeld has a clear conscience. History will not be kind to this man.
Rumsfeld also sent Americans into battle without protective body armor. Only after bad publicity did the proper protection reach the troops. The blood of many dead soldiers is on Rumsfeld’s hands. While President Bush sacrificed by not golfing, terribly wounded soldiers were sent to Walter Reed Hospital to recover. Instead they entered hell on earth. Outpatient mistreatment was reported in 2004, but nothing was done. In 2004 and 2005, articles appeared in the Washington Post and in Salon interviewing First Lt. Julian Goodrum about his court martial for seeking medical care elsewhere due to poor conditions at WRAMC. A Washington Post expose in 2007 finally revealed the horrible mistreatment of our brave wounded soldiers. These reporters uncovered the following conditions:
- WRAMC's Building 18 is described in the article as rat- and cockroach-infested, with stained carpets, cheap mattresses, and black mold, with no heat and water reported by some soldiers at the facility. The unmonitored entrance created security problems, including reports of drug dealers in front of the facility. Injured soldiers stated they are forced to "pull guard duty" to obtain a level of security.
- The typical soldier was required to file 22 documents with eight different commands – most of them off-post – to enter and exit the medical processing world, according to government investigators. Sixteen different information systems were used to process the forms, but few of them could communicate with one another. This complicated system has required some soldiers to prove they were in the Iraq War or the War in Afghanistan in order to obtain medical treatment and benefits because Walter Reed employees were unable to locate their records.
Salon recently reported about the tremendous surge in suicides by soldiers who have been pushed beyond their limits:
- Last year the Army had its highest suicide rate on record -- 140 soldiers. But new data from the Army on Wednesday showed the number jumping even higher. Forty-eight soldiers have already killed themselves so far this year. If that rate keeps up, nearly 225 Army soldiers will be dead by their own hand by the end of 2009.
- Soldiers returning from long tours in Iraq or Afghanistan suffering from combat stress were sometimes met with scorn from their superiors and something bordering on neglect from some medical officials. As their largely untreated problems deteriorated, their marriages unraveled under the strain. They turned to alcohol and drugs and in some cases saw no other way out than suicide.
- Healthcare officials at various installations who are struggling to help say they're overwhelmed by huge numbers of troops returning from two, three or even four deployments with acute mental problems from combat.
Nearly 20 percent of military service members who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan — 300,000 in all — report symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder or major depression, yet only slightly more than half have sought treatment, according to a new RAND Corporation report. Many service members said they do not seek treatment for psychological illnesses because they fear it will harm their careers. But even among those who do seek help for PTSD or major depression, only about half receive treatment that researchers consider "minimally adequate" for their illnesses.
For all the glory and accolades of dying for Dick Cheney, enlisted soldiers make between $15,000 and $30,000 per year. The military evidently does not prepare them well for the outside world as their unemployment rate is 11.2% versus the national rate of 8.1%. A country can be measured by how well it treats its veterans. Our leaders talk a good game, but their actions prove they don’t care about the human costs of war. They are busy planning their next move in their game of Risk.
Moral Cost
Now in darkness, world stops turning
As the war machine keeps burning
No more war pigs of the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of Judgment, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings
All right now!
Black Sabbath – War Pigs
Omar Bradley, the last five star General in the U.S. military, was known as the “soldier’s general” during World War II. He was portrayed by Karl Malden in the movie Patton as a thoughtful man who cared about his troops. He was one of the key architects of the Normandy invasion and led the 12th Army Group consisting of 900,000 men until the end of the war. After the war, Bradley headed the Veterans Administration for two years. He is credited with doing much to improve its health care system and with helping veterans receive their educational benefits under the G.I. Bill of Rights. He ultimately rose to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Contrast the words of the fictional Colonel Kilgore from the movie Apocalypse Now, with the words of General Bradley.
Kilgore: I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like
[sniffing, pondering]
victory. Someday this war's gonna end...
[suddenly walks off]
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.”
Omar Bradley
We need men like Omar Bradley and Dwight D. Eisenhower in control of our country today. These men knew the horrors of war and didn’t act like it was a game of chess. There are brilliant men in power today. There are no wise men with a conscience in power today. Only those without a conscience are able to gain power in today’s world. General Bradley understood that morality was ultimately more important than power and strength in the progress of a country. His words are those of someone who knew we had failed in our moral duty:
“We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount.”
- Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
- Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.
- Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
- Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
- Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
- Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
- Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
- Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Peacemakers are ridiculed and shunned in today’s world. Old men who care more about their own power than the human race are willing to sacrifice the blood of young people for oil, phony nationalism, strategic interests or philosophical agendas. The world is a game for these old men. They care about legacy and ideology. War and militarism are a failure of passion over reason. Albert Einstein, whose discovery brought about the age of potential world destruction, had no love for blind warriors.
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.”
The overwhelming cost of maintaining a global empire eventually bankrupted Rome and Great Britain. Treasures were wasted, young men were needlessly sacrificed in the name of the flag, and the morality of leaders sank to unprecedented levels. The U.S. has advanced financially and technologically, but continues to decline morally. How far will we decline before the American people revolt?
I’m reminded of the movie Planet of the Apes. The apes are divided into a strict class system: the gorillas as police, military, and hunters; the orangutans as administrators, politicians and lawyers; and the chimpanzees as intellectuals and scientists. Humans, who cannot talk, are considered feral vermin and are hunted and used for scientific experimentation. The United States is now in the control of gorillas and orangutans. If we continue down the current path of financial and moral decay, allowing the Military Industrial Complex and corrupt leaders to push us into further world conflicts we will experience the shock and horror that George Taylor, played by Charlton Heston, displayed in the final scene of Planet of the Apes.
George Taylor: Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it.
[screaming]
You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!
If you are seeking the truth, join me at www.TheBurningPlatform.com.
154 Comments
compoundfracture
Excellent work, Jim. Someday we've got to chat. We must have been separated at birth. War Pigs was (still is) a favorite Sab song of mine. I first heard it as a high schooler back in 1975 or so. We can't afford "Empire" anymore. I don't get why the folks running this country can't grasp that fact, but that seems to be the case. It's like all of this is being done on purpose - but to what end? To drive us into a global government? It's either that or our politicians can't admit defeat.
Elihu
Dear Mr. Quinn,
As a decorated combat veteran, now retired, I do believe you are a little 'over the top' in your assessment of our military. I certainly don't agree with all the decisions of where to send our valued troops (e.g., Afghanistan. Iraq, et al), nor do I approve of the vast (obvious) waste of $$'s spent (much is spent without discernment), but this missive sounds to me like you may be someone with an anti-war bias. As long as there is humankind, there will be war. Just my opinion of course. And Black Sabbath? Please!
Elihu
[7] “When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be frightened; those things must take place; but that is not yet the end.
C.C.
Jim -
This is where the 'Neocons' blew it royally. They had a chance last year to take Liberty and the tenets of REAL conservatism back.
So what did they (and their book-O-the-month club 'conservative' AM talk-hosts) do with that opportunity? They hitched their entire wagon to the (phony) war on non-terror, thinking that by banging the drum 24/7 on made-up fears of an imminent beach-landing of explosive-belt wearing fanatics screaming Ali-Akbar, that they would keep the country hiding underneath Hannity's skirt long enough to elect yet another military-industrial complex oligarch to the presidency - and all would be well. Again. And of course they couldn't resist along the way in their self-righteousness, to spit one of the only men in politics with real Balls enough to bring government to heel during the debates.
Oh, we still got the oligarch all right - he's just from that other (phony) Donkey party, who are laughing just as hard behind closed Capitol Hill doors as the one-man Elephant-party-in-drag Limbaugh is at a $10,000 per person cocktail party with 'close friends'. After a hard day at the golf course, of course.
Is it any wonder why the 'conservative' proletariat is fractured & divided? Wasn't the primary plank of true 'conservatism' supposed to be - LIMITED GOVERNMENT...?
I guess it's only limited to what you want to pick that suits your idea of what government should be, no? Kinda like smörgåsbord government perhaps?
Thankfully, many people from both sides are seeing what this Oli-plutocracy is really all about - as the savior president is already reneging on many of the promises he made - gee, that's not like a politician to say one thing during campaigning, but do the opposite upon taking office now is it?
It was only a few short years ago - like not more than a few days after the election in 2004, that the 'conservative' punditry proclaimed that evil Democrats would be 'out in the wilderness' for the next 20 years... And callers who phoned in the AM Neo-con-job talk-Gods to express their concern over the true underlying health of the economy were summarily 'flushed' as 'seminar' callers or too stupid to figure out that we were in a 'new' economy - a realm of prosperity, if only you would pull yourself up by the bootstraps, why you too could land a $400M contract with Clearchannel networks...
My, my... What a few million lost jobs and decimated 201 (?) k's will do to the hubris of a political movement, no? And in fairly short order, no less.
Yeah folks, it's a whole lot more than a 'phony economy' as one Peter Schiff so eloquently states, that is coming down all around us - and not a moment too soon.
Peace -
C.C.
DELAZUS
AS LONG AS THE "DEMOKRAPT LIBS" HAVE U
FOR THEIR "BAND-AID LIB SOOTH WRITER"
THEY AND THEIR ILK WILL CONTINUE TO
PROPAGATE THEIR "PEOPLE SICKNESS" TO
THEIR ILL EDUCATED VOTING MASSES!
ENOUGH TO ALLOW THEIR BLOOD TO RUN
IN THEIR SAND CLAIM "OVER THERE" AS WELL,
ESPECIALLY AT THE BEHEST OF THEIR
"BLACK BAGMAN CIRCUS LEADER"!
HIS "HOT AIR LEADERSHIPLESS ANTICS"
WILL, IN THE END, GET THOUSANDS MORE KILLED!
ONLY THIS "WORLD HISTORY TURNING POINT" MAY FLOOD
OUR OWN STREETS WITH THEIR BLOOD......."THIS TIME"!
Rgd`s, delazus
Novista
The audacity of hubris:
Barackander the Great will show the world that past history can be rewritten. I'm sure all the other invaders felt the same.
Anonymous
"Military expenditures benefit humanity in no way."
That's just not true. They can and have benefited humanity in two ways:
1) By keeping evil at bay - Nazism or Communism. Or were those just myths? And by keeping stability and peace so that freedom and democracy can exist.
2) By developing technology - lasers, microwaves, radar, digital communication, satellites, and photovoltaics all benefited from massive development for military applications.
Daniel
Be careful what you wish for. Read the book "Ghost Wars" or the 9-11 Commission. When we cut our military, and our intel budget, we end up paying for it in the long run. Our gov't role is to protect us. I am not saying that we don't spend on items that are unnecessary, but in tough times the isolationist tendencies will end up costing us. Watch what happens in the next few years when Iran gets a nuclear weapon, or when North Korea develops an ICBM. Read Caroline Glick's piece on EMPs, that was recently echoed by Gingrich.
Also, the military is a massive industry. Anybody can poke around and find issues. Having been in the military, I can agree with Rumsfeld - you go to war with the arms you are given. There is a saying "That's what there is, with it, you will win."
Don't complain about spending too much money, and then point out that the Humvees are not armored enough. Also, using statistics about homeless and the military are also disingenuous for a number of socio-economic reasons that I won't explain here.
Daniel
Jim complained about a lot. He complained about the money, and the mission.
The Money: We can discuss cutting – very real and valid discussion. However, once you do, don't complain when our jeeps are inferior, or veterans are homeless, are borders are porous. We will be the victim of terror (best case), or nuclear / EMP attacks (worse case). In the end, the Commander-In-Chief will need to make hard decisions, good or bad. Make a case on what we should invest in as oppose to just whine about the bill. “A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
The Mission: The military’s role is to protect this country, and its interests. If oil is a strategic asset, we will need to protect it. $200 barrels of oil would cripple this country far worse then the debt. Oil and money is power and influence. It can buy WMDs. Don’t be blinded by our mistakes in Iraq, and think that we don’t live in a dangerous world. Just because the USSR failed does not mean we are out of the woods. Again, we can protect the mainland, but don’t complain when the fight comes to our doorstep. For example, I happen to think cutting missile defense is criminal negligent considering the threats we face.
To compoundfracture: You state: “Perhaps a militia and a non-interference policy are what the US needs” and then go on to question my comments on “Isolationist tendencies” in this blog. I don’t understand your logic. Your strategy for defending American interests is to emulate the Swiss. Good luck with that. Having only a militia means opening the door to others who will be happy to step in. They will control your life. People that don’t understand that, fail to comprehend the global economy. We can’t turn back the clock. If you are OK with that, we can agree to disagree.
Daniel
To Anonymous: Again, I am happy to talk about how to cut the costs. You’ve already shown your hand with “massive overburdening military structure”. One could argue it was the best investment this country has made. It has allowed for the McMansions, and the freedom for people on this blog to question its value.
coolasice114
I think you are bang on with this one. It is brave of you to tackle this topic when you know many libertarians make an exemption for military spending. Only a fool would ignore the military budget when its grown this large. The U.S. chooses to spend the bulk of its treasure on military adventurism at the expense of health care, education and public infrastructure. Don't listen to the brainwashed ex-military types - its like talking to any gov't employee, there department can never be funded with enough tax dollars - they are insatiable.
Just remember folks that the US has chosen to spend the lion's share of its resources on the military. IT IS A CHOICE, many other countries chose to invest this money on their people directly through education, health care, and research and business development. The US does not have to be a military economy... seems like a ripe place to start making cuts to get the budget balanced.
Robmu1
I'm torn. Yes, we all want more money going to starving children and education and medicine. Of course. And yeah, I'm sick of hearing the whining from those around the would who object to U.S. military 'intervention', yet conveniently forget how they may have benefited from the security blanket that the U.S. has provided throughout their region, so it would be interesting to hear from them after calling the bluff and pulling the troops home. On the other hand, let's not fool ourselves into believing the left wingnut nonsense about the U.S. wanting to conquer the world and having a bloodlust to intervene in every other country's affairs - in many cases, the other countries are begging us to intervene. Remember Bosnia - Europe stood by helpless, and although the military operation happened with a NATO flag flying, it was mostly executed with U.S. troops and planes. And don't fool yourselves - if we pull troops from the DMZ, there is a high probablity that there will be war in the Korean Peninsula. If we pull troops from Japan, China will be licking her lips and Japan will be forced to militarize. Sound good? How about we pull troops from Europe? Iran will love to see how their saber rattling will spook the EU, after all, Berlin is within shouting distance of Iran's intermediate range missiles. Or how about we pull the 5th fleet? Goodbye Israel. And maybe we go home and watch Taiwan being overrun by the Chinese in a few weeks? Or India and Pakistan exchanging nukes? The harsh truth is the the U.S. military keeps the peace in more ways that all of us would like to admit. Conversely, we could hand over security for the various regions mentioned above to China, Russia and France. Good luck. If we all think things are so bad now, think realistically about a world where the U.S. withdraws troops from around the globe - I would guess that it wouldn't be all about peace and harmony and exchanging floral bouquets and recipes- more like Shahabs and Panzers and ICBMs. At least there would be more money for the teachers in the U.S. to help the children remember the good old 20th century's prosperity.
Lucas Jackson
A big part of the problem is that many of you are searching for a US way to solve these horrible imbalances in humanity and that is simply not possible. The US can make marginal changes which could help but it's the entire institutional system that needs changing. Under the current institutions that dominate life on earth (govt, financial/banking/corporate, military, religion) the US would be worse off if we dismantled our military. However, if the conversation is a global one where human beings everywhere begin to understand how we live in a world with enough resources to feed, house and educate everyone and how the current institutions today only serve to keep the status quo, not improve the entire human condition, then we can begin to discuss the dissolution of the military and many of our other "necessary" institutions. We are all humans, connected to each other and the earth. Our differences are trivial and man-made. We are smart enough to decode the genome, split the atom and put men on the moon. Aren't we smart enough to find solutions end hunger? homelessness? diesease? poverty? The answer, of course, is yes, we are smart enough. But do we have the intellectual honesty and courage to analyze, challenge and remove the established institutions that dominate human life at the expense of most of us for the benefit of a few of us? I probably sound like a hippie or G-20 protester but I have an MBA from a top-10 ranked school, worked on trade floors on Wall Street for almost 12 years, spending time at some of the biggest, most dominant financial firms on the planet. In addition, I'm a former enlisted Marine who served during the first Gulf War. It's taken me decades to realize how ignorant I've been about the world in which we live. I certainly don't have all the answers to the question, "Ok smart guy, if not this system, then what?" But I am certain that humans can figure this out if we simply apply and develop our technology to solving problems, not creating them. Stop defending the government and instead question them at EVERY opportunity! That is what this country is founded on, civil disobedience in hope of a better life, not religion, corporate or military values.
JimQ
Robmu1
Do you want any money going to anything in the US? Is it worth 44% of your tax dollars to keep Pakistan and India from blowing each other up? Do we really believe that Iran will launch a nuclear missile at Israel? One of our Nuclear subs could obliterate Tehran in an instant. We don't need troops in Germany and Japan? Is Russia about to pour into Europe with tanks? NO Is China going to piss us off when we buy all their stuff? NO
Spending $765 billion a year on the Military is a crime against humanity. And remember, we are borrowing every God damn cent.
Robmu1
Jim,
What are you proposing? Is it the complete withdrawal of all troops from around the world? Are you suggesting that there will be no military aggression as a result? Because if there were, surely we would pay the price via plunging stock markets and collapse of demand worldwide, as well as endless humanitarian missions that will result. So, let's say there was no military aggression. What do you think will happen with the 1,000,000 unemployed soldiers? Will we be picking up the tab for that? Please work that into your numbers. Also, since Obama is bailing out every failing company in the U.S. to save jobs, what will the cost be to save every military contractor? Please work that in. I'd say your saving have shrunk by 50% conservatively. Of course, that will be erased when we are forced to intervene in WWIII, when any one of the hot spots worldwide is reduced to a heaping pile of smoldering ashes. Your plan to unleash a torrent of recipe exchanges may result in a net loss for U.S. taxpayers.
Daniel
Jim - sorry, my browser won't allow me to reply to you directly. You asked a lot of rhetorical questions, so let me ask you a few:
Did we really believe pulling out of Vietnam will result in the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the subsequent murder of 1.5m people? Did we really believe Germany, the most advanced nation in Europe would systematically murder millions of people? Do we really believe North Korea can be running concentration camps? Do we really believe a band of weak Islamic fundamentalists would dare attack the USA? Evil does exist, it does happen. Russia did pour into a neighbor with tanks (Georgia).
Again, I’m not arguing that we need to be everywhere, every time, or that we should not examine our military budget so it reflects the threats and challenges ahead. However, a “Swiss” or a “militia only” perspective will have many consequences you have not discussed in this blog. The US didn’t enter WWII until millions were already dead. Your perspective in 1942 would have lead to the complete control of Europe by the Nazis. Again, I’m just highlighting that the presence of our military is not a crime as you state.
BTW – I believe that once Iran has a nuclear weapon they will use it. They will pass it to a terror organization, and then proclaim innocence. Do you think we would retaliate with a weapon? At the very best, they will strong arm the region. The debt in this blog will be a minor worry when they roll over Bahrain. One more thing - Iran or N Korea will soon be able to detonate a nuclear bomb and be able to create a electical pulse weapon. Please read about it. It will send this country back to the stone ages and they just need 1.
JimQ
I am proposing that we bring home the majority of the troops from around the world. They can be used to protect the border when Mexico collapses. They'll probably be valuable when civil unrest breaks out because you are charging $10 for a loaf of bread.
We can't afford to police the world. Every empire overreaches and believes they can save the planet from itself. Can we stop Arabs from hating Jews with guns? They have to work it out. Not our job.
The military contractors can switch to something productive like producing wind turbines, nuclear plants, solar panels, whatever. GM stopped producing cars in 1941 and switched over to tanks and jeeps. It can be done.
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
These are not the words of some liberal commie. Five star general and President of the U.S. during the Cold War.
JimQ
Daniel
So based on your logic, we should definitely be ramping up. Are we the policeman for the world? You seem to think we should have been in Vietnam in the 1st place. Vietnam should have settled their own issues. 50,000 Americans didn't need to die. It appears they are getting along now, without us. Amazing!!
Are you saying we should invade North Korea because they have concentration camps? I think we should invade Saudi Arabia because they don't treat women well. Maybe we should invade Brazil because they are destroying the rain forests.
I'm not sure what you are arguing. I'm arguing for the US to spend enough on the military to protect our country.
Explain how the terror organization will get a nuclear bomb, get it into our country and detonate it. I hear this rhetoric but have never been given a plausible explanation of how it would happen. Sounds like Dick Cheney's mushroom cloud warning for invading Iraq. OOPS. No WMD.
JasonRines
Note to users: It seems IE 6 is not allowing 'Reply' with our technology. This will be fixed by the EOD tomorrow.
Jason Rines
Admin- Raging Debate.com
Tarkus
"From a foreign perspective, one must wonder why the U.S. is spending such vast quantities on our military. They can only conclude that it is for offensive intentions rather than defensive"
Exactly so.
Every loaded gun is gonna go off, and the more loaded guns you have, the more probably it will happen.
So come to your senses until it's not too late.
JasonRines
I'll weigh in and net out: Empires overextend themselves. Sometimes they expand again later such as the British or Roman empires. Sometimes they are like the Dutch and quietly take there place in international affairs. In all cases, the money supply is manipulated beyond natural boundries of expansion through debt. The Romans had alchemists. We have Fractional Reserve Lending. The monetary model of lending through Central Bankers is becoming irrelevant slowly over time. Why? Because the Internet is disruptive technology. Why have standing armies, legions of brokers and politicians when the global citizen can manage there own affairs bottom up at the local, regional and national level simealtaneously. The next era this will be the case and it will replace this era's debt/slavery expansion model. Ultimately, perhaps several hundred years from now this system will also become corrupt and some clever group will figure out how to slowly but surely gain global control of the money supply. Genetic engineering that fixes our broken code will stem much of the impulsive human behavior while medical solutions are created for chemical imbalances often causing the impulsive behavior.
JimQ
Robmu1
I've already figured out how to make a loaf of bread for $.25. Outsource to Mexico. They won't need to comply with minimal lead levels in the Stroehman.
I think you shot yourself in the foot on the Bradley quote. You're assuming he prevents war with force. Based on my reading, he would prevent war with diplomacy.
"If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner."
"With the monstrous weapons man already has, humanity is in danger of being trapped in this world by its moral adolescents."
I think he was referring to George Bush when he referred to moral adolescents.
Andy
Yes, the US does not have to be a military economy, but it is. And I only wonder what US would do in a case of nuclear attack from, say, North Korea? Imagine just one hypothetic korean ICBM penetrating the US anti-missile defence and burning just one American city to the ground. What will be the consequences for Korea? Will it be completely ground into dust and wiped off the face of the Earth? Considering all the military might of America, it seems quite a probable outcome. Would such response be adequate and just retribution?
Anonymous
why does the term "percentage of GDP" appear nowhere in this document?
Robo
If there are 31 comments why are there only 23 posted? Too much scary stuff for the faint-at-heart. All this repeated rheotoric, not going to solve many problems like this.
Anonymous
I agree with Jim completely and I think many of the responses to the article are based on a sense of American exceptionalism. Yea I know, it's a dangerous world and if it wasn't for the USA all hell would break loose blah blah blah. We are a wonderful peace loving people whose only interest in maintaining a gigantic military is for the good of mankind etc.
Get a Grip. The biggest threat we face is our own belief in the lies and deceits our government and corporations tell us everyday. Propaganda is a subtle enterprise. When I read posts by apparently smart people like Daniel, robmu1 et al that basically reiterate the same old stale bs that has been pumped into our heads since the day we were born....well it confirms in my mind that practically anybody can be co-opted into the service of the state whether for good purposes or bad.
I'm sure some of the aforementioned posters are convinced their POV is correct and realistic. That's fine. For me personally the size of the US Military, the scope and breadth of it's reach, and the acceptance of it by most Americans as a ubiquitous part of our daily lives is quite disturbing. The MIC is such an integral part of the landscape and the economy of most congressional disricts that people have come to accept US militarism without question. Honest hardworking men and women go to work at places like the Boeing-Vertol plant in Delaware County, Pa and hundreds of other installations just like it where they build gunship helicopters, tanks, landmines and other miltary hardware with nary a thought that maybe what they are doing for a living isn't so wonderful after all. They say it's for the defense of the country right? We need this industry of warmaking capabilty so we can have a job right? Just regular folks working hard for their check with the added benefit of helping the country. I'd say the propoganda of American exceptionalism has worked very well on these people.
Arguron
" Any doubt that the Military Industrial Complex is as strong as ever should be removed after examining Obama’s 2010 budget just put forth. It calls for 26% more in spending on Defense than President Bush spent in 2006."
I was wondering why you chose to use 2006 as the comparison rather than 2008 or even this year?
Wez
Another fantastic article Jim. One suggestion, list sources a little more. It really helps with the ultra high brow intellectual, wants to "fact check" crowd. I'm not questioning you, cause I'm to lazy for that, I think you will get more recognition from main stream media if you separate yourself from the opinionated rant crowd with a list of sources for your stats. Than again, media like CNBC clearly lean toward positive bullish commentary as the ignorant masses don't like to read "negative" commentary.
You are a fantastic writer bro, I love all your relevant quotes. Nothing better than commentary on current events matched with an eye to our past so we are not doomed to repeat our past mistakes.
The problem is our government is not concerned with "not repeating the mistakes of the past" as they have an interest in keeping the mistakes that further their cause.
DianeB
Thank you Jim for sharing the truth, if only our country would stop and listen. Stop and listen to your words before it is to late for our country.
How much longer can we continue this craziness before we collapse as a nation. I fear that it will happen sooner, much sooner then later.
kraut
Thank you Jim for another in-depth research with some solid facts and figures on a hot topic that has been crying for attention.
Frankly, I was shocked. 7,000,000,000,000 US $ for the military and practically half of the taxpayer's money?!?!
Already on September 10, 2001 Rumsfeld declared that a part of that sum couldn't be recovered by the Pentagon (what a useful coincidence that the Pentagon explosion on 9/11 destroyed a lot of the materials necessary for a proper investigation...).
I agree that 18 SSBN's would be sufficient for nuclear deterrence, next to the fact that they would remove populated mainland areas from a potential target list.
While the US have fallen back in a lot of technological innovations, there is no doubt, that the US is the worldwide leader in military technology, exports - however - are limited to "friendly" nations and by trying to bring more buyers of US technology into NATO (i.e. former Soviet States) tensions with Russia will inevitably rise.
History has shown that the massive built-up of military power, inevitably leads to armed conflicts. In addition wars in foreign lands throughout history have been means to draw attention from domestic problems...
Both the British and German Empire were stuck in a battleship-building arms race prior to World War I and were eager to test their muscles.
Germany's re-arming during the 1930's was an obvious preparation for World War II.
And nobody really knows if China's massive production of tanks is merely for the purpose of eliminating local riots or a long-term preparation for a possible occupation of the eastern parts of Russia, rich in natural resources.
Regarding Afghanistan, the Soviets learned their lesson, the US seems to be reluctant to listen to the Russians. It becomes obvious that the US intends to establish a foothold in Central Asia.
Hopefully merely to be in control of the region's oil resources...
phil
Another great article, Jim. I always have found you on financial sense andnow will look for yoru site.
mistah charley, ph.d.
The host at moonofalabama.org pointed me to Douglas A. MacGregor’s article in the April 2009 Armed Forces Journal, titled “Refusing battle: The alternative to persistent warfare.”
“Despite the seriousness of the present economic crisis, the greatest danger to the future security of the U.S. is Washington’s inclination to impose political solutions with the use of American military power in many parts of the world where Washington’s solutions are unneeded and unsustainable….
Far too often, national decision-making has been shaped primarily by the military capability to act, not by a rigorous application of the purpose/method/end-state strategic framework….
As a declaratory goal of U.S. military strategy, conflict avoidance is not merely a restatement of deterrence or a new affirmation of collective security. It is a policy stance that stems from a decent regard for the interests of others, regardless of how strange and obtuse these interests may seem to Americans. It is an explicit recognition by Washington that no one in Asia, Africa, the Middle East or Latin America wants American troops to police and govern their country, even if American troops are more capable, more honest and provide better security than their own soldiers and police….
Treating conflict avoidance as a declared strategic goal should give pause to those in Washington who think counterinsurgency is something American military forces should seek to conduct. For outside powers intervening in other peoples’ countries as we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, so-called counterinsurgency has not been the success story presented to the American people. Making cash payments to buy cooperation from insurgent groups to conceal a failed policy of occupation is a temporary expedient to reduce U.S. casualties, not a permanent solution for stability….
A strategy of refusing battle that routinely answers the questions of purpose, method and end-state in the conduct of military operations is the best way for the U.S. to avoid following in the footsteps of the British Empire into ruin.”
DavidS
Jim,
Great article. It saddens me to read the comments from some of the others who seem to believe that a good old fashioned war is all we need. Cripes, when are people gonna realize that wars do is finance industries and help politicians to line their pockets with blood money, but do nothing but get the rest of use killed?
Most of the armchair generals I've met in my life have never actually been in battle; if they were even in the military it was in some chickenshit support position where they could fantasize about battle, but never had to pull a trigger or drag a dying buddy back to safety.
War is hell, and expensive too. There was a time I thought all problems could be solved with "superior firepower" but as I've aged I find it makes less and less sense to use the military as a police force when we could be using diplomacy instead. As Jim points out, look at how much more we spend on weapons then the rest of the world... Would it not be better to just give that money out as five dollar bills?
Jimmy Buffet (not to be confused with Warren) does a live version of "Margaritaville" where he proposes this very idea to the crowd as a way to tame the old Soviet Union. His version starts with us dropping five dollar bills on the place one week and then following up the next with mail-order catalogs... Victoria Secrets was one of the suggestions...
Jimmy figured with all that american currency, all those mail-order catalogs, the Russians would put two and two together; America would have full employment, the world would know peace and the Russians would have crotchless panties until the year two-thousand... Needless to say that was a few years ago, but I'd argue there is a lot of possibilities such a program could explore.
Just the idea of all those beautiful russian women in crotchless panties is enough for me to lend my support to this sort of odd plan.
All joking aside, it seems to make more sense giving away money, than dumping a bunch of high-explosives on peasants who are just trying to raise kids and eat.
The odd thing is I've thought of myself as "conservative" since I was old enough to vote; but I find fewer and fewer people claiming to be conservative, are like me. What ever happened to taking care of our own and not messing with other countries? Don't give me any of the "that was before 9/11 crap," 'cause it's a turd that won't float.
American politicians, at the behest of corporations and a pip-squeek middle east county, wage wars that steal the American taxpayer's money and put it in the pockets of a few assholes that don't give a damn about you or me. WAKE the F*&% people!
Robmu1
Anonymous,
I would be happy to debate you when you grow up. Maybe they didn't teach this at your school yet - the world is a tough place, and yes, there are creepy, scary people out there. Pick up a few books in the history section, but not the ones they have in your school library - they probably have taken the scary ones out. Try a bookstore. Once you get through those, check back with us. You may even want to creat a user name so we can call you out on your posts.
Anonymous
Life on this planet is a constant battle for resources. Nothing else. Sad as it may be.
Freesmith
"The United States invaded Iraq to secure the 115 billion barrels of oil reserves, pure and simple."
Please provide irrefutable evidence for that assertion, or withdraw it.
Irrefutable evidence will consist of the absence of any other rational, conceiveable reasons offerred by America's political, diplomatic and military leaders for the US to invade Iraq, given the political situation as it existed in 2003.
I know IKEA is a Swedish company, but did they give anti-war seminars at lunch during your time with them?
I hear Jane Fonda is unattached now.
Given what's going on in northern Mexico, isn't it more interesting to think about invading and conquering that narco-anarchic mess?
If you're not on offense, you're on defense. Haven't we had enough of being on defense in this midden-heap of a world?
As a great American once said: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." There's a plan with a pedigree - the 18th and 19th centuries, the apogee of the West.
In the 20th, we forgot the vital third part of the plan.
"Bring it back! Bring it back! Bring it back!" (Led Zeppelin)
This is fun!
JimQ
Daniel
That is the difference between you and me. You use your imagination and I use facts. Answer me this question and don't avoid it with rhetoric. Would a deadbolt lock on cabin doors have prevented 9/11? If we had spent an additional $300 billion on cruise missiles, M1 tanks, and additional aircraft carriers, would 19 fanatics with knives have been prevented from bring down the twin towers? 9/11 was a police failure. FBI, airport security, and CIA. It wasn't a military failure and would not have been prevented by more military spending.
How about the unintended consequences of invading? There were by most estimates 10,000 people in the world associated with Al Qaeda on 9/11. After spending $1 trillion, are we more or less safe today? Do more fanatics hates us or less?
Please explain to me how having our military in Afghanistan will keep a merchant ship with a nuclear bomb from sailing into our harbors today, 6 years ago, or 6 years from now. You make a great case for more security for our harbors. I'm with you on that one. More jobs here in America. That doesn't make a case for more cruise missiles.
How much less safe will we be if we spend $300 billion a year on the military? Do you know? Why is $765 billion the right number, because Lockheed Martin lobbyists say so?
Mushroom cloud neo-con BS don't cut it in my world.
therooster
Daniel and JimQ ....
I launched a question in another forum of a financial nature about 6 years ago when the debate on the middle east invasions was ripe with conversation and debate.
Could a modern day war be waged without deficit financing ? (emphasis on modern day)
I offer the question in an honest and passionate attempt to remain viligant on causes.
avalon
compoundfracture
Avalon, thanks for posting that link. For me, Dr. Paul pretty much says it all there.
Freesmith
The answer is no, a modern war could never be launched without deficit financing. Hell, most medieval wars couldn't be launched without it either. But that discussion is a diversion in this series of comments on Jim's stale anti-war diatribe.
War is always wasteful. It almost always leads to the growth of central executive power - Vietnam being a contrary example. It is the health of the state, not the people.
But the current crisis in the West, and in the US in particular, can hardly be laid at the feet of the military, the military mindset, "neo-cons," or American "Empire." Americans didn't pull equity out of our homes to finance Strykers. We did it to buy HDTVs and trips to Hawaii.
The symptom of the current crisis is inflation - the concept and all of its ramifications, economically, psychologically and politically. We have inflated ideas about a whole host of things. The idea that we could re-invent an Arab country by ourselves is only one small part of the syndrome.
Jim's past economic analyses have been right on point. When he wrote about the four great "bubbles" he clearly saw that inflated dreams of an ever-expanding financial future were bound to come crashing back to earth.
Unfortunately, the current screed is a waste of time, unless expending anger and calling names is a goal. The military always learns the lessons of over-reaching way before the civilians do. There is no reason to castigate them, especially for carrying out what at the time was - and is, according to the Obama budget - the national will.
Now I know that Jim will say - rightly - that his attack is against the politicians, not the soldiers; against the M-I complex, not the troops. But by recycling the same old anti-military claptrap that we've all heard - and seen in a theatre near you - he undermines military spending and readiness, while doing nothing to weaken the actual ravenous beast itself.
That beast is the utopian social management class, an octopus with far greater reach than Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and which never learns the lesson of its over-reaching. It hasn't disavowed its inflated dreams for itself and for us - it has re-doubled them!
It is that Leviathan that Jim should put in his sights.
We've got plenty of corduroy-wearing, pot-smoking, Birkenstock-shod, anti-war, anti-religious intellectualoids spouting the same stuff Jim wasted this post on. But there is a real shortage of people who understand and can explain the genesis and end-game of our current economic dilemma.
As Spock said to Kirk in a similar situation: "Anything else is a waste of material."
JimQ
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/149062/january-31-2008/ron-paul-sounds-alarm
Extremely funny video, as Stephen Colbert shows how ridiculous Romney, and McCain are in a backhanded way.
Leigh
These articles are interesting, but repetitive and questionable in some ways. The point on the U.S. defence expenditure is obvious. But when the articles descend into the usual low taxes rhetoric, one can only conclude you don't know what you're talking about. Germany exports about four times more per capita than the U.S. and is a high taxing society. The Scandanavian nations are usually in the top five of every list of education, health and happiness, and are the highest taxing societies in the world. All low taxes leads to are huge salaries for baseballers and other rubbish. All one can say about the U.S. is that they came out of WWII in one piece - unlike Germany - and have in one generation squandared their lead, and in two generations fallen well behind. Maybe you need to start addressing the question of why Germany exports more than the U.S. depsite having a quarter of the population. Ron Paul couldn't explain that in a million years. I become tired of reading the usual economic ideas of Americans, ideas which exist in a North American vaccuum. No doubt people in the U.S. will still be blabbing on about low taxes, when the main choice they have for lower cost cars is between Volkswagen and Toyota.
kraut
I wouldn't necessarily agree that "Ron Paul couldn't explain that in a million years". The industries of Germany and Japan had been destroyed after WWII, forcing them to buy the latest in manufacturing technology and thus giving Germany and Japan a long-lasting competetive advantage in comparison to countries like the United Kingdom and others.
Germany used that chance to become a world leader in specialized machinery, Japan became the leader of entertainment electronics and both became leaders in low-consumption and low-cost cars (again, a result of WWII in an attempt to provide the poor populations with affordable means of transportation, remember the Volkswagen "Beetle").
With both contries restricted in regard to the development of military technology and the beginning of the Cold War, the US stepped in as the provider and leader of military technology, eventually bringing the USSR down due to the costly arms race.
Indeed, the US have fallen behind in other fields of technology and desperately need to catch up - if that is even still possible!
I also agree that taxation isn't necessarily bad and can indeed be a means of political guidance. Europe has low-consumption cars because of high gasoline taxes. In Europe a gallon of Unleaded will cost you approx. 5.70 US $ because it includes almost 4 US $ of gasoline tax.
Again, each previous US government has missed the chance of introducing and slowly and gradually increasing a gasoline tax to promote the production of low-consumption cars. As soon as oil prices increase again, the US consumer will only have the option to accept it or leave it.
Because of the instrument of gasoline tax, European governments will have the means to lower gasoline taxes and thus keep gasoline prices 'artificially' stable to some point.
Leigh
Sorry Kraut, low-cost cars, remember the Beetle? What about Mercedes-Benz and BMW? I don't remember Renault, Peugeot and Citroen being low-cost cars either. Or Volvo or Saab.
The point that I am making though is that the author doesn't address how the U.S.A. will rebuild its economy other than to talk about lower tax rates and small government. But, if one looks at other nations, this doesn't appear to lead to a healthy economy. The author doesn't address how small government and low tax leads to BMW and Daimler-Benz (though neither are perfect) rather than a bankrupt Ford and GM and millionaire baseballers. Why don't people in the U.S.A. trust their governments? I find this very odd. Why do Americans trust profit-driven corporations instead of government run companies that can be regularly inspected and audited? This is a major difference between Europeans and Americans. Why do Americans trust a doctor who works for a profit-driven corporation, rather than a doctor who works for the government (which can be audited and inspected regularly)? How does low taxes and service industries run by profit-driven corporations lead to a better society?
Freesmith
Leigh,
I read your two comments and thought about them. The fact of high German exports that you mention is interesting, but not convincing as an argument for the superiority of an economic system that features high taxes and high regulation. After all, if you restrict domestic consumption with taxation and subsidize exports, what other result would you expect? A similar brief could be made for the Asian "Tigers" and China, who likewise emphasize exports instead of encouraging their people to enjoy the fruits of their own labor. It has some benefits, but is it what we want? As Peter Schiff has said, work without "stuff" (goods purchased with the money you earn) is slavery.
Something similar may be happening in the US today, if we're lucky, but it won't be by government fiat. It will have been forced upon us by the end of our 20-year spending spree. Broke America is being forced to cut back on consumption and re-emphasize production. That re-emphasis will be accelerated when the dollar falls, as it must, and we can no longer afford those Camry's and Yarises, let alone Germany's BMWs and Mercedeses.
Naturally, our government is working against this very aspect of what you would rightly describe as a strong economy. It wants to keep the credit flowing, and keep the spending coming, and to produce for domestic use. It wants Americans to go deeper into debt and if we're not willing to do it ourselves, then the government will do it for us.
Which brings me around to my three main disagreements with you, other than your obvious disdain for baseball (Go, Red Sox!). I'll phrase them as questions, because I do not understand how you can believe what you appear to be advocating.
Explain to me why you believe that politicians seeking votes will create and sustain an economy better than entrepreneurs seeking profits?
Why are you seemingly comfortable with monopoly power, i.e. the state? (I like to call it Der Stadt. Somehow that term has a truer historical ring to it.)
Lastly, how can you claim to have a healthy economy when the society enjoying it is on a demographic death-spiral to oblivion?
The US will rebuild its economy by postponing gratification and by reducing the government. That means saving income and cutting taxes. After all, if Jim's point is valid that we are spending too much on a legitimate function of government - the armed forces - then we are certainly spending far, far, far too much on illegitimate purposes, like Social Security and Medicare.
If we can't afford some waste in defense, we sure as hell can't afford 56 Trillion Dollars in unfunded liabilities now, can we?
Best Regards,
Freesmi
You're not driven by ideology? Don't make me laugh. This entire discussion thread began when I disagreed with your unprove-able, hackneyed left-wing, knee-jerk ideological assertion that "the US went into Iraq for oil, pure and simple," which is a despicable slander on this country.
Are you reading what you're writing? "You people." What preconception are you addressing with that description? It certainly isn't me, about whom you know nothing. "The American people are a bunch of zombies." Speak for yourself. This isn't argument; it's pure rhetoric.
I didn't disagree with your facts, Jim. Didn't you comprehend that? I said I'd heard them all before and that it was time to move on. I said the argument was a distraction to a much more pressing and dangerous present, but like the ideologues you decry, you can't seem to give up the ghost of past arguments. You want to rehash the stale old stew and then insult as zombies those of us who have better things to do and better arguments to make than to put Bush on trial.
Ron Paul is Republican. He once was a Libertarian, but he got tired of being irrelevant. You could learn something from his experience in politics. But if you don't learn it, your destination will very likely be a bitter and anti-democratic one, like Lew Rockwell.
The last sentence in your reply is stark evidence of where the hopelessly negative thinking you are indulging in always leads - to the commissar of the thought police and then the Gulag. Dangerous knowledge indeed!
I advise you to lighten up, pop a brew (later, it's too early in the day as I write this) and reflect on what Jesse Helms said upon the election of Ronald Reagan: "God has given America one more chance."
We may have another chance coming, but we'll have to work toward that future, not look backward to mope about the past, nor castigate this great country.
P.S. What are facts without theories? How do you assess facts WITHOUT theories?
PPS: Why no complements to the quality of the posters on your site? Me, for instance. LOL
I thought my Reichstag-Nuremberg metaphor was really top-notch, especially because it was produced on-the-fly and after my bed-time. But not a word from you, except the perjorative "rhetoric." Darn!
If you want to keep traffic coming to your site, you're going to have to be more customer-friendly. Didn't IKEA teach you that?
JimQ
Nice article with officials inside the Bush White House regarding invading Iraq for oil before 9/11.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II27Ak01.html
Freesmith
Back from earning my daily bread in the real world. Now it's time to enjoy myself.
Rather than hiding this discussion under a virtual rug, I'm going to take this back onto the main thread-page of the discussion. I want more people to read it.
Thanks for the apology. I came to this site respecting the opinions of those who post on it, even if I disagreed with some of them. It's nice to see - even belatedly - that view is shared by the proprietor.
Mutuality - it's a beautiful thing. (Was that Proudhon?)
It's nice to know you re-read my posts, even though you appear to have been fishing for examples of personal insults on my part in order to say "You did it, too!" Better luck, next time.
I sympathize with your hurt feelings, though. Back where I come from - which you do not know - the two worst things you can say to a person is 1) to call him an "asshole," and 2) to say "I hear Jane Fonda is unattached now." Congratulations on being so thick-skinned and emotionally composed under my abuse, which you kindly have listed for everyone to see.
Dramatic Interlude:
A Scene From Plato's Republic. A Socratic Dialogue as translated by James Quinn
Socrates, Glaucon and Cleitophon have returned from Piraeus, where they spent the day sitting in a dark cave, trying to see reality. Glaucon pulls out a six-pack of Dionysius Lager and tosses one to Socrates.
Glaucon: There you go, Teacher. That'll sooth your thirst.
Socrates: It's not my thirst - It's my ass that's killing me!
Glaucon looks at Cleitophon. They laugh, knowingly.
Socrates: That cave was cold, boys. Sitting there for a few hours is not good for my old bones.
Cleitophon: And I couldn't see a damned thing. It was too dark.
Glaucon: Did you see anything, Teacher?
Socrates: Just a bunch of shadows. What a frigging waste of time!
At this point Thrasymachus barges in.
Thrasymachus: Teacher! I think I have proof that the real precedes the ideal.
Socrates: Are you on drugs, you moron? You sound like you're foaming at the mouth. Sit down and shut up, asshole! I'll tell you what to think!
(to be continued)
My views on improving the country are traditional and conservative. I would have thought that my earlier reference to Frank Chodorov and Roger Scruton would have given you some insight into my thinking. But I'm just a husband and father trying to keep my business going and my kids healthy and comfortable. I don't claim to have the answers. That's why I come to websites like this - to take in new ideas and new ways of looking at things, and it's why I bristle at the trite, the mendacious and the knee-jerk.
I also find political views like "I wouldn't vote for either Helms or Edwards" unsatisfactory. Those choices are often the only ones we get. It is easy and narcissistically pleasing to abstain from imperfect choices in favor of some ideal that never seems to arrive, but like onanism such an attitude produces nothing. You might as well vote "Present!" As I said before, Ron Paul can teach you a lot about politics and the folly of self-regarding, self-protecting Libertarianism. I have found in my life that it is a folly that leads inexorably to anger and bitterness. You have done little to dissuade me from that belief.
Daniel! Shout out to you! Thanks for the encouragement and the kind words. In your honor here's one more line from Star Trek II that you'll enjoy.
Kirk to Khan, after foiling against the super-villain's scheme to kill him: "I'm laughing...at the superior intellect!"
Freesmith